Secondary Transmission: ﻿The short and sweet about live virus vaccine shedding.

A child gets vaccinated and is from that moment on protected from the vaccine virus, correct? We all realize that vaccines are not 100% failproof, but is that the only concern?

If it only were that simple. The fact is that once a child is injected with a live virus vaccine (and let’s assume that this child is immune as a result of it) there are still other things to consider which most parents do not know about and most pediatricians fail to warn about – which is vaccine shedding!

Shedding is when the live virus that is injected via vaccine, moves through the human body and comes back out in the feces, droplets from the nose, or saliva from the mouth. Anyone who takes care of the child could potentially contract the disease for some time after that child has received certain live vaccines. This was a huge problem with the oral polio vaccine, and was one of the reasons why it was taken off the market in the US.

The OPV is still used in developing counties.

Secondary transmission happens fairly often with some of the live virus vaccines. Influenza, varicella, and Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) are the most common. On the other hand it may happen very seldom or not ever with the measles and mumps vaccine viruses.

Here are the vaccines that shed or have been known to result in secondary transmission:

Measles Vaccine - Although secondary transmission of the vaccine virus has never been documented, measles virus RNA has been detected in the urine of the vaccinees as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after vaccination. (1)

In France, measles virus was isolated in a throat swab of a recently vaccinated child 4 days after fever onset. The virus was then further genetically characterised as a vaccine-type virus. (2)

Rubella Vaccine - Excretion of small amounts of live attenuated rubella virus from the nose and throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7-28 days after vaccination. Transmission of the vaccine virus via breast milk has been documented. (3)

Chicken Pox Vaccine - Vaccine-strain chickenpox has been found replicating in the lung (4) and documented as transmtting via zoster (shingles sores) (5) as well as “classic” chickenpox (6) rash post-vaccination.

Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) - In areas of the world where OPV is still used, children who have been vaccinated with it pass the virus into the water supply through the oral/feces route. Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine viruses, which can pass from person to person and spark new outbreaks of polio. (7) *

FluMist Vaccine - The mist contains live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients.

Transmission of a vaccine virus from a FluMist recipient to a contact was documented in a pre-licensing trial. The contact had a mild symptomatic Type B virus infection confirmed as a FluMist vaccine virus. (8)

Rotavirus Vaccine (RotaTeq) - There is a possibility that one strain of rotavirus which is presently circulating may be an “escaped” vaccine strain, from an old Finnish rotavirus vaccine. (9)

Following are excerpts from the discussion by the FDA Advisory Committee on RotaTeq vaccine shedding: (10)

Page 50:

The latest shedding that we saw was 15 days from dose one.

We had no subjects that shed after dose two, and only one subject shed after dose three. He shed four days from dose three.

Page 51:

A: The quantities were low, similar to what we saw in phase 2 studies, as well.

We also had two placebo recipients that shed, and of course, this raised a red flag for us.

B: Could this have been transmission of vaccine virus from vaccine recipients to placebo recipients?

A: We did a very thorough investigation looking for opportunities for a vaccine transmission to occur and did not find anything. These children were not siblings of a vaccine recipient. They didn’t attend day care with vaccine recipients. They didn’t have a common caretaker with the vaccine recipient, and in the office and clinic in which they were vaccinated, they were not exposed to vaccine recipients.

So going on then to summarize general safety, Rotateq was well tolerated….

Page 70:
Question and answer section -

Then with respect to the possibilities of how these children ended up with vaccine strains in their stool, we really could not find the answer for that. We even went so far as to look and see like on the day that that child was in the clinic, were other children getting vaccine, you know, right before or after them?

And that was not the case. So it has been a puzzle, and we don’t have an answer as to why these children had vaccine strains in their stool.

(One has to ask: Could the reason have been that someone mixed up the placebo with the actual vaccine vials and consequently some kids of the control group got the real vaccine?)

*We have had complaints (see comments) that we quote-mined reference (7). Here is the complete quote from the article.

“Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine’s virus, which gives them some protection against polio. But in very rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a form that is dangerous enough to spark new outbreaks.”

Comments

26 Comments on Secondary Transmission: ﻿The short and sweet about live virus vaccine shedding.

jules on
Mon, 25th Feb 2008 10:18 am

I believe the titer test(blood test) for Measles can also tell if it was the vaccine-type Measles or wild Measles. Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong:)

Some people never develop an immunity-vaccinated or not. That is why some people get chicken pox more than once, or some women get repeated Rubella vaccines and still show no immunity. Reinfection is also always ‘possible’ if vaccine or natural immunity wears off over time due to NOT being exposed which helps keep immunity level up.

Marconi on
Mon, 25th Feb 2008 10:45 pm

The titre blood test cannot differentiate between vaccine-type measles or wild measles. In order to do that, the virus would have to be typed with a test called Polymerase Chain Reaction, and the “bar code” compared with the reference viruses for either the vaccine virus, or the wild virus. Furthermore, the vaccine virus varies slightly with every new attenuation, so each batch of vaccine might show a slight genetic variation from each other.

To say some people never develop immunity, vaccinated or not is very simplistic. If you mean, some people never show antibodies on a titre test, that too is very simplistic. The current titre test offered to parents is a crude measure. Using other tests such as ELISA, antibodies can be picked up, which the standard titre test does not.

It is “normal” for some people to develop antibodies, for antibotides to subside over time, and for a titre test years later to show no antibodies. However, if you vaccinated those people, or blood tested them before and after a known exposure and subclinical infection during with the person shows no signs of infection, the immediate rise in detectable antibodies over a period of days is a specific curve which shows an anamnestic response. What that means is that the person actually did have immunity, but it was “memory” immunity. Just because a person doesn’t have “detectable” immunity according to a titre test, doesn’t mean they have lost their immunity.

What it means is that immunologists have not yet devised a method for detecting permanent “memory” immunity.

Virology texts are also interesting, in that they point out that many children who don’t have antibodies cope very well with diseases like measles. The reason for that is that the key to survival of a first exposure to disease in any person, isn’t antibodies anyway. When you first come in contact with any disease, how well you survive that is due to your “cellular” immune system, which does utilise IgA, and IgM at some point if you have a normal immune system. But most textbooks, even older ones by ‘greats’ like McFarlane Burnett, describe in great detail, children who have no antibodies, who cruise through measles and polio. The rate of paralytic polio in normal children (using the most virulent strain as a reference point) is one case of paralysis, per 100 children with mild symptoms. The historical rate of paralysis in children with no antibodies is 6 per 100. So while children with no antibodies are 6 times more likely to get paralytic polio, the cellular immune system of those children guarantees that 94 out of 100 of them will not.

Yes, some children with no antibodies will get sick and die. But not all of them will.

The key to fighting an infection for the first time, in everyone, normal or not, is a well functioning cellular immunity is nutrition, nutrition, and nutrition. A person can have a normal immune system, but if they have malnutrition or bad nutrition, their immune system will not work properly, and they can die regardless. Anyone working in Africa can tell you that. The connection between nutrition, infection and immunity has been, and is very strong in the medical literature.

A huge amount of “immunity” is based on the integrity of the gastro-intestinal system, and the person’s nutritional status. Antibodies are essential the net at the bottom of the cliff, which while vital, isn’t the most important factors.

Using Tetanus as an example, were antibodies the most important part of the immune system with regard to protection against tetanus, then the human beings on the earth would never have got past the first generation. Even in the western world, civilians had no access to a tetanus vaccine until around 1960 (at least in the country in which I live). You just have to look at your own family tree to realise that your great great grandparents probably died of other things rather than tetanus during childhood.

So the use of antibodies as a measuring rod of “immunity” is not only a very crude measure, it’s inaccurate. But it’s a very useful “weapon” with which to create fear.

[...] It’s for FLU-MIST. The only reason I’m posting this (and for very good reason), is that most people aren’t aware that the nasal mist vaccine is far worse then the regular arm-shot. It’s a LIVE vaccine that increases the risk of side effects. Most important to know…it SHEDS!!!! Shedding is the term of “covert inoculation”. If one only one person in your household gets the nasal vaccine…they become a transport system to vaccinate others in the household. For up to a week…whoever they come in contact with, pick up the vaccine through direct contact. WTF? It’s true. And it can be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, if not life-threatening….if anyone they live with has any sort of compromised immune system! READ MORE ABOUT THIS… or HERE. [...]

maureeen on
Sat, 20th Aug 2011 6:33 pm

I was told not to have any recently vaccinated children near my husband when he was dying of cancer; a close friend who had an organ transplant was told to stay away from his grandchildren if they were recently vaccinated. Where is the herd immunity in this admonition? Obviously the recently vaccinated child is a huge risk to the immunocompromised person than the child who has never been vaccinated when the shedding and transmission of disease is taken into consideration.
A vaccinated child is a carrier of the disease they have been vaccinated against. This is NOT the case with unvaccinated children.

Thank you for this article.

Gary on
Sat, 5th Nov 2011 5:02 pm

You are confusing shedding with transmission when you say “Secondary transmission happens fairly often with some of the live virus vaccines”. Shedding is the expelling of virii from the body. Transmission is those virii infecting another not vaccinated person. Shedding occurs rather frequently (although not always). Transmission does NOT occur frequently as your data shows. “the probability of acquiring a transmitted vaccine virus was estimated to be 2.4%”

The mention of OPV seems overly hyperbolic. The problem of secondary transmission in that case also requires a mutation of the virus. Although this can, and indeed has, occur, it is not a common or “huge” problem. The OPV was removed from the US schedule because although small, the risk from this vaccine became larger than the risk from wild polio once wild polio was no longer endemic in the US. OPV is still used in other countries because wild polio is still endemic there (not counting reasons of cost, effectiveness, or ease of administration).

Taken altogether, none of the things you have suggested here makes any of these vaccines more dangerous than the diseases they prevent.

admin on
Sun, 6th Nov 2011 7:44 am

Hi Gary, thanks for commenting!

The article doesn’t actually recommend against the use of any of the vaccines. It simply attempts to increase the knowledge base of people who are interested in the topic.

A major concern is exposure of people with immune deficiencies to recently vaccinated children or adults. Vaccination programs do not necessarily ask if a relative is undergoing chemotherapy for example. Mass immunizations in schools and communities endanger the immune deficient as much, or more than the occasional unvaccinated person might.

[...] It’s for FLU-MIST. The only reason I’m posting this (and for very good reason), is that most people aren’t aware that the nasal mist vaccine is far worse then the regular arm-shot. It’s a LIVE vaccine that increases the risk of side effects. Most important to know…it SHEDS!!!! Shedding is the term of “covert inoculation”. If one only one person in your household gets the nasal vaccine…they become a transport system to vaccinate others in the household. For up to a week…whoever they come in contact with, pick up the vaccine through direct contact. WTF? It’s true. And it can be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, if not life-threatening….if anyone they live with has any sort of compromised immune system! READ MORE ABOUT THIS… or HERE. [...]

I have to agree with Gary that your description of the OPV above is bordering on the dishonest. You write “Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine viruses, which can pass from person to person and spark new outbreaks of polio.”

Why do you *start* with the same information as the actual msnbc article, but remove: “Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine’s virus, **which gives them some protection against polio**.” And also remove: “**But in very rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a form that is dangerous enough** to spark new outbreaks.”?

Do you just cut out the information that is inconvenient to your own biases?

Boss on
Mon, 6th Aug 2012 4:47 pm

Chris Lee, you are making the mistake of assuming that just because someone says something it must be true. The source says a lot of stuff about the poliovirus which sheds from OPV. Is it all true?

Look into the 47,500 children who came down with Acute Flaccid Paralysis in India the same year that polio was declared eradicated. And then get back to us about how safe the polio vaccine is. The rate of AFP is, coincidentally of course, highest in the parts of India where the vaccine is given intensively.

Chris Lee on
Tue, 7th Aug 2012 1:49 pm

@Boss – No, the writer of the article above made the assumption that the cited news story was true.

What I am asking is why the author (seemingly deliberately) cut out the parts that either put negative aspects into a narrower context (the rare instances of the virus mutating), or gave positive aspects to the shedding (conferring protection on others)?

And yes, I am getting back to you right now regarding the article where the 47500 children with AFP comes from (http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html) and let me quote something for you right from the article and the authors recommendations (or go to the page and read it yourself):

“The low incidence of non-polio AFP in places given less than six doses, suggests that routine immunisation is relatively safe.” “Routine immunisation must be strengthened….” “It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunisation.” “India needs to urgently ensure that adequate supplies of the vaccines that it requires are available for our children…”

Get back to me when you decided that the research you told me to go and look up must actually be wrong because it recommends vaccine use (just not its significant overuse in a country with poor sanitation and lack of clean drinking water).

Boss on
Wed, 8th Aug 2012 7:52 am

Chris, you are still assuming that you can read minds.

You are also assuming that it is okay to have mass outbreaks of AFP, to ignore them while the press crows about “eradicating” polio, even to ignore many deaths.

I think someone is heavily into cherry-picking. And it isn’t insidevaccines.

Chris Lee on
Wed, 8th Aug 2012 2:00 pm

@Boss – You have made 4 claims about me assuming things so far (please also read the last item at the end).:

1) “just because someone says something it must be true” – No. You were wrong and I never claimed that.

2) I can read minds – No. But I am predicting your behavior – i.e. Show me I am incorrect and that you agree with the recommendations about vaccinations in the paper cited above. I would be pleasantly surprised.

3) it’s okay to have mass outbreaks of AFP – No. I am glad the scientists of the paper found big problems with the *administration* of the vaccine and gave recommendations on how to remedy them.

4) You think “someone” (implication: me) “heavily” cherry-picked. No, BUT please demonstrate how I misrepresented the findings in the paper.

Now – let me ask you:

1) You quoted 47500 children with AFP – I found and read the research that states that figure as you suggested.

The research indicates a significant problem with how the *oral* vaccine is administered in a 3rd world county with inadequate sanitation and clean drinking water. There appears to be a possibly significant correlation between the vaccine and AFP.

The researchers state:

a) that they a different timing of vaccines, plus sanitation and clean drinking water.
b) that not being vaccinated at all would carry immense risks.
c) that routine immunisation is relatively safe

Do *you* agree with the researchers’ recommendations?

Chris Lee on
Wed, 8th Aug 2012 2:09 pm

Sorry, a) should read:

a) that they recommend a different timing of administering vaccines, plus sanitation and clean drinking water.

Marconi on
Thu, 9th Aug 2012 5:11 pm

@ Chris. This artice was a brief overview of all “sheddable” vaccines.

Perhaps what we should have quoted from the article is:

“”This is the oral polio vaccine paradox,” said Olen Kew, a virologist at the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “This vaccine is the most effective tool we have against the virus, but it’s like fighting fire with fire.”

Dangerous mutation
What’s needed to stop Nigeria’s outbreak is more of the same vaccine that caused it.”

??

Now, that’s his opinion. Why should we behave like lemmings and report that?

We’ve given people the link to the actual article, and people can make up their own minds on the issues, which is a lot more than most provaccine sites say. They just tell people what to think, which is what you want us to do. We aren’t into brainwashing people.

You want us to say: ““The low incidence of non-polio AFP in places given less than six doses, suggests that routine immunisation is relatively safe.” ” amongst other sentences, but it’s not your job to tell us what to say.

You also say “I have to agree with Gary that your description of the OPV above is bordering on the dishonest. ”

Actually – if you’d read as much medical literature as I have you would have blushed in saying the above, because the medical descriptions of polio, and a person’s “risk” or “chance” of catching polio told to parent, doesn’t just “border” on dishonest, it is utterly dishonest.

(That same dishonesty also comes into effect with regard to measles and many other diseases as well, for which there is a vaccine)

in reality, the comment which says, “The low incidence of non-polio AFP…” should apply to polio as a disease, as well. Early medical literature was utterly baffled by polio – it’s sudden emergence as an epidemic disease starting from around 1895, the variety of it’s symptoms, and the appalling cruelty and idiocity of it’s treatment. the rate of attack was very low. Initially, a vaccine was not considered a necessity on the basis of your “chances” of getting it. The vaccine was mooted primarily because the disease was becoming increasingly severe in terms of sequelae.

A brief outline of most of that is explained in a very large book called “The History of Poliomyelitis” written by J. R. Paul.

J.R. Paul is utterly provaccine as well, and would love to vaccinate every man, woman, child, and metaphorically every wild animal and dog. And by the way, polio isn’t just a human disease – there’s plenty in the early medical literature describing polio in guinea-pigs, cats, dogs, chickens and even cows… Yet today, parents are told that polio is only a human disease.

I spent years going through not just the polio medical literature, but also the official statistical database for the country in which I live.

Early medical literature (before there was a vaccine) talks a lot about how “rare” clinical polio was. Both Salk and Sabin wrote many medical articles expressing utter puzzlement about how (for instance) in the Phillipines, the “local” people never got polio and called it white man’s disease, because… the highest rates of clinical disease were in American soldiers based in the Phillipines. Yet neither of them were good enough “sleuths” to come to any conclusion as to why that might be. Both authors saw the same thing in other countries such as China, Japan – places where white faces were both recent and a minority. So why was polio initially, primarily a “white man’s” disease?

In the country I live in, three things stand out from the official data-base.

1) That in the very worst epidemic year, the clinical strike rate for polio which included both paralytic and non-paralytic, was 1 per 3,000. Yet the Ministry of Health in this country, tells young mothers today that in an epidemic the chances of children getting polio are 1 in 100.

2) Investigations done by Medical Officers of Health at during every outbreak or epidemic, showed in their weekly statistical analyses and maps showing areas of cases, that every time there was a polio outbreak in this country, it STARTED in the remote rural areas – NEVER in built up areas. They could never work out why.

3) Until around 1951, polio was only active from about mid – late summer. In the years after 1951, the incidence of clinical polio started to extend further into the winter months. They couldnt’ figure that out either.

There was also a minor fourth point of interest which was noted, but never publicised. In one polio outbreak, the local wheat crop could only supply half of the country with wheat for that year. So local wheat supplied the area in which it was grown, and imported wheat from a country with totally different growing “methods” supplied the other half of the country. Medical Officer’s of Health were most puzzled as to why the clinical polio was primarily seen in the half of the country which was supplied with the imported wheat. Only one medical officer of health figured that out, and he lost his job and reputation as a result.

So there is a huge amount of “other” information – all of which has a huge bearing on any discussion of the topic, which could be tossed around. And not just about polio, but other diseases as well.

All of which would raise huge questions about the words published and spoken by – not just the medical profession at the time when vaccines were first mooted, but the medical profession and media today.

As an example, we have the full text of an article in which Maurice Hilleman admitted that clinically, there wasn’t much need for a measles vaccine because measles wasn’t that severe a disease in western countries any more, but the real reason to use his measles vaccine was because measles could now be vaccinated against – because he had made a vaccine, it should be used.

If you track medical literature BEFORE the use of the measles vaccine, and after, you will find that BEFORE the vaccine’s use, complication and death data had much lower figures than today. After that vaccine, and gradually a period of four decades, those same figures have vastly changed to the point where NOW, CDC maintains that the death rate for measles is around 3 per 1,000, which is an utter nonsense.

But we don’t attempt to discuss everything the medical literature says, to justify what we say here, because we can imagine the rank unbelief that would follow it, from people like yourself, who believe what CDC says today.

Another reason, which we can just about bet on, is that if we DID take the trouble and the years to scan everything, and put all the full text articles up so that the public could see for themselves, we would be accused of:

1) breaching copy-right
2) putting up so much material that it would take people as long as it did us, to read it, and
3) “confusing” people.

The reason I put up No.3, is that in the country I live in, medical error statistics are kept out of the publicly available statistical data-bases.

Under the FOI I asked for it, and also wanted to know why it was not published publicly.

The data was supplied and the “reason” provided for non-publication, was that people would get “confused” because they wouldn’t be able to interpret it properly. Yes, mere parents are such stupid people.

Of course the provaccine use the same argument, when explaining why detailed and accurate medical information about diseases, are not provided to parents. Sort of along the lines that it would be too time consuming for parents, and anyway, they should just “trust” the experts, like people trust their cars to mechanics.

What we do here, is point people to sources of information to make them “think” about the issues in a larger context than the current conditioned cloned and conformed thinking.

This post is also, perhaps, a long way of saying that we don’t feel the need to justify ourselves to people only interested in one opinion.

Their own.

My username is not Marconi, for nothing.

MrPink on
Thu, 9th Aug 2012 6:30 pm

@chris Lee: ” What I am asking is why the author (seemingly deliberately) cut out the parts that either put negative aspects into a narrower context (the rare instances of the virus mutating), or gave positive aspects to the shedding (conferring protection on others)?”

The author clearly picked out the pertinent part of the article based on fact rather than the shameful speculative excuse for justification.

Boss on
Thu, 9th Aug 2012 6:54 pm

Wanted to add that I would be more impressed with the recommendations about AFP if they came not from the doctors who raised concerns about the problem in India but from WHO, or Rotary, or someone with money and power.

AFP has been a problem worldwide for many years. Most of the time cases are carefully counted, labeled “not polio” and then ignored. Our article on the history of polio and AFP points out that over 600,000 cases have been counted in a 13 year period and…

I don’t think another 47,500 cases will get WHO stirred up. Or anyone else.

Polio will be defeated and paralysis will roll merrily along and, except for the families of the dead and paralyzed, no one will do anything or be concerned. After all, it isn’t POLIO.

Pathetic.

Chris Lee on
Thu, 9th Aug 2012 8:03 pm

@Boss – So is that a yes or a no to my question?

@Marconi – I didn’t ask/want/demand you say anything about the AFP article – I only mentioned it in my responses above because Boss suggested I look at it.

The original article quoted msnbc, not an individual’s opinion mentioned in the article, but specific statements from the article itself. However, the original article deliberately cut out parts of the statements from the msnbc article that were positive. That’s quote-mining, not giving quotes full context:. The difference between:

Original: “Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine’s virus, which gives them some protection against polio. But in very rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a form that is dangerous enough to spark new outbreaks.”

And the article above: “Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine viruses, which can pass from person to person and spark new outbreaks of polio.”

Marconi, if you have read as much research as you state, then you know that you either use a source to support an argument, or use a source to refute. You don’t cherry pick only parts of a source you agree with and don’t report or ignore the parts of a source that you don’t agree with.

You’re quite right, an individual opinion by itself it just an opinion. From research you’ll also know that anyone today can write and publish a book. Nothing in a book ever needs to be verified.

I hope I’ll have demonstrated that I will go and read research if you suggest it to me. I accept my bias as being “pro-vax” but I’m happy to go and read peer-reviewed journal published research.

But – if you could offer perhaps a specific case, rather than a blunderbuss of quotes, opinions and claims, it would be easier to respond and read through.

Boss on
Sun, 12th Aug 2012 6:06 pm

Hi Chris,
Sorry for the delay in approving your last comment.

I’ve decided you are right and I’m going to add in the rest of the quote about polio shedding from the vaccine.

With a little bit more good stuff…

Enjoy.

And thanks for your contribution!

Chris Lee on
Tue, 14th Aug 2012 12:22 pm

Cool – thanks for the update. Sorry to bother you with an article from such a long time ago. I’ll move up to some more recent stuff.

Boss on
Tue, 14th Aug 2012 5:54 pm

Delighted that you realized this is an old article. Hang in there.

Boss on
Tue, 14th Aug 2012 5:58 pm

There is that, thanks for the quick summary of the way that such articles try to make cow patties into chocolate cake with a bit of quick spin

[...] Originally Posted by CMarie Also, many people who are "anti-vax" (at least the ones I know), don't believe at all that by not vaccinating our children we're putting other people at risk. If anything, from what I've heard, they worry about the vaccinated children putting THEIR children at risk. How so? Vaccine Shedding is the main reason I believe. Here's an article on it with some information (right from the vaccine inserts) on the shedding of some of the vaccines: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/…cine-shedding/ [...]